14-1972 Financial Federal Credit Inc. v. Klug



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER**  **J ANUARY**  **1, 2007,**  **IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F**  **EDERAL R** **ULE OF A** **PPELLATE P**  **ROCEDURE 32.1**  **AND THIS COURT ’**  **S L**  **OCAL R** **ULE 32.1.1.**  **W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**  **DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE**  **( WITH THE NOTATION**  **“ SUMMARY ORDER**  **”). A**  **PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL**  **. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 19 th** **day of March, two thousand fifteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 7 **Circuit Judges ,**  8 **GARY L. SHARPE,** 9 **District Judge**

**.** ***** 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 11 **Financial Federal Credit Inc.,** 12 **Plaintiff-Appellant ,**  13 14 **-v.- 14-1972** 15 16 **Ramar Crane Services, LLC, Ramar Steel** 17 **Sales, Inc., Ramar Steel Erectors,** 18 **Inc.,** 19 **Defendants-Appellees**
**.** ** 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 21

* Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, sitting by designation.

** The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption in this case to conform with the caption above.

1**FOR APPELLANT:** JONATHAN D. DEILY (withStacey 1 M. Metro & Mark D. Glastetter, 2 on the brief ), Deily & 3 Glastetter, LLP, Albany, New 4 York. 5 6 **FOR APPELLEES:** KEVIN S. COOMAN, McConville, 7 Considine, Cooman & Morin, P.C., 8 Rochester, New York. 9 10 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 11 Court for the Western District of New York (Larimer, J. ). 12 13 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 14 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 15 **AFFIRMED**

. 16 17 Plaintiff Financial Federal Credit Inc. (“FFCI”) 18 appeals from the judgment of the United States District 19 Court for the Western District of New York (Larimer, J. ), 20 granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Ramar Crane 21 Services, LLC, Ramar Steel Sales, Inc., and Ramar Steel 22 Erectors, Inc. (collectively, “Ramar”)

. We assume the 23 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the 24 procedural history, and the issues presented for review. 25 26 We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment 27 de novo , construing all evidence in the manner most 28 favorable to the nonmoving party. See Janes v. Triborough 29 Bridge & Tunnel Auth. , 774 F.3d 1052, 1054 (2d Cir. 2014). 30 31 **1.** The Liebherr crane: as the district court 32 concluded, Ramar qualifies as a buyer in the ordinary course 33 under section 1-201(9) of the New York Uniform Commercial 34 Code. 1Ramar purchased the Liebherr crane, in cash, from a 35 used crane dealer. The conditional “buy back” option (which 36

1 This is a diversity case. The parties disagree about whether Maryland or New York law should apply, but all agree with the district court’s conclusion that the relevant provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code are identical in both states. Because we agree that there is no relevant conflict between Maryland and New York, we apply the law of the forum state: New York. See Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL , 672 F.3d 155, 157 (2d Cir. 2012).

2was never exercised) and the contemplated “trade-in” of 1 another crane (which never happened) are not enough to take 2 this transaction out of the “ordinary course of business” 3 under New York U.C.C. § 1-201(9). The district court 4 correctly concluded that Ramar purchased the Liebherr crane 5 free of any security interest from FFCI. See N.Y. U.C.C. 6 § 9-320(a). 7 8 **2.** The Tadano crane: we agree with the district court 9 that FFCI never obtained a perfected security interest in 10 the Tadano, because Ramar neither completed the sale, nor 11 delivered the crane. See N.Y. U.C.C. §§ 2-106(1), 2-401. 12 13 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in 14 FFCI’s other arguments, we hereby **AFFIRM** the judgment of the 15 district court. 16 17 FOR THE COURT: 18 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 19 20

3